http://web.missouri.edu/~bondesonw/Laud.

html

Laud Humphreys and the Tearoom Sex Study

Laud Humphreys, a sociologist, recognized that the public and the law-enforcement
authorities hold highly simplistic stereotyped beliefs about men who commit impersonal
sexual acts with one another in public restrooms. "Tearoom sex," as fellatio in public
restrooms is called, accounts for the majority of homosexual arrests in the United States.
Humphreys decided that it would be of considerable social importance for society to gain
more objective understanding of who these men are and what motivates them to seek
quick, impersonal sexual gratification.

For his Ph.D. dissertation at Washington University, Humphreys set out to answer this
question by means of participant observation and structured interview. He stationed
himself in "tearooms" and offered to serve as "watchqueen" - the individual who keeps
watch and coughs when a police car stops nearby or a stranger approaches. He played
that role faithfully while observing hundreds of acts of fellatio. He was able to gain the
confidence of some of the men he observed, disclose his role as scientist, and persuade
them to tell him about the rest of their lives and about their motives. Those who were
willing to talk openly with him tended to be among the better-educated members of the
"tearoom trade." To avoid bias, Humphreys secretly followed some of the other men he
observed and recorded the license numbers of their cars. A year later and carefully
disguised, Humphreys appeared at their homes claiming to be a health-service
interviewer and interviewed them about their marital status, race, job, and so on.

Humphreys' findings destroy many stereotypes. Fifty-four percent of his subjects were
married and living with their wives, and superficial analysis would suggest that they were
exemplary citizens who had exemplary marriages. Thirty-eight percent of Humphreys'
subjects clearly were neither bisexual nor homosexual. They were men whose marriages
were marked with tension; most of the 38 percent were Catholic or their wives were, and
since the birth of their last child conjugal relations had been rare. Their alternative source
of sex had to be quick, inexpensive, and impersonal. It could not entail any kind of
involvement that would threaten their already shaky marriage and jeopardize their most
important asset - their standing as father of their children. They wanted only some form
of orgasm-producing action that was less lonely than masturbation and less involving
than a love relationship. Of the other 62 percent of Humphreys' subjects, 24 percent were
clearly bisexual, happily married, well educated, economically quite successful, and
exemplary members of their community. Another 24 percent were single and were covert
homosexuals. Only 14 percent of Humphreys' subjects corresponded to society's
stereotype of homosexuality. That is, only 14 percent were members of the gay
community and were interested in primarily homosexual relationships (Humphreys,
1970).
Informal inquiry (Knerr, 1970) indicated that Humphreys' research has helped persuade
police departments to stop using their resources on arrest for this victimless crime. Many
would count this as a social benefit.

There were also social costs. The research occurred in the middle 1960s before
institutional review boards were in existence. The dissertation proposal was reviewed
only by Humphreys' Ph.D. committee. Only after the research had been completed did
the other members of the Sociology Department learn of it. A furor arose when some of
those other members of the department objected that Humphreys' research had
unethically invaded the privacy and threatened the social standing of the subjects, and
petitioned the president of Washington University to rescind Humphreys' Ph.D. degree.
The turmoil resulted in numerous other unfortunate events, including a fist fight among
faculty members and the exodus of about half of the department members to positions at
other universities.

There was considerable public outrage as well. Journalist Nicholas von Hoffman, who
was given some details of the case by one of the angered members of the Sociology
Department, wrote an article about Humphreys' research and offered the following
condemnation of social scientists: "We're so preoccupied with defending our privacy
against insurance investigators, dope sleuths, counterespionage men, divorce detectives
and credit checkers, that we overlook the social scientists behind the hunting blinds
who're also peeping into what we thought were our most private and secret lives. But
there they are, studying us, taking notes, getting to know us, as indifferent as everybody
else to the feeling that to be a complete human involves having an aspect of ourselves
that's unknown." (von Hoffman, 1970).

[This case was prepared by Dr. Joan Sieber, Visiting Research Scholar, The Kennedy
Institute, 1977-78, and Professor of Psychology, California State University, Hayward.]